REGULATORY FOCUS MODERATES THE EFFECTS OF FEEDBACK VALENCE ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Yıl 2021, , 1138 - 1154, 01.04.2021

Burak Dogruyol

https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.764406

Öz

Previous studies have mainly examined the effect of regulatory fit in the context of single goal-pursuit. However, the dynamics for multiple goal-pursuits have been left largely unexamined. Therefore, two studies were conducted to explore the role of regulatory fit under the different goal-pursuit conditions. First study, using bogus feedback following regulatory orientation framing for solving anagram tasks, revealed that the fit between prevention focus and negative feedback increased motivation in the post-feedback session. In the second study, participants allocated limited time between the two imaginary goals following regulatory orientation priming. Results showed that participants allocated higher levels of resources when they experience regulatory fit. Results highlighted the importance of the fit experience on resource allocation in the multiple-goal context.

Anahtar Kelimeler

regulatory fit, multiple goal-pursuit, dynamic self-regulation, feedback valence

REGULATORY FOCUS MODERATES THE EFFECTS OF FEEDBACK VALENCE ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Öz

Alan yazındaki çalışmalar düzenleyici uyumun etkilerini sadece tek bir hedefin izlendiği koşullarda incelemiştir. Bu çalışmalarda, çoklu hedeflerin izlendiği durumlara özgü dinamikler genel olarak göz ardı edilmiştir. Bu sebeple, düzenleyici uyumun etkilerini ortaya çıkarmak için farklı hedef izlenme ortamlarında iki çalışma yürütülmüştür. Birinci çalışmada, düzenleyici odak manipülasyonu ile verilen anagram çözme görevinde katılımcılara sahte geribildirim verilmiştir. Bulgular, kaçınmacı odak ile olumsuz geribildirim arasındaki uyumun, geribildirim sonrası performansı arttırdığını göstermiştir. İkinci çalışmada, düzenleyici odak manipülasyonunu takiben, katılımcılar hayali hedeflere ulaşmak üzere sınırlı kaynaklarını iki hedef üzerinde bölüştürmüştür. Sonuçlar, katılımcıların düzenleyici uyum deneyimledikleri hedeflere daha çok kaynak ayırdıklarını göstermiştir. Sonuçlar genel olarak, uyum deneyiminin çoklu hedeflere ulaşmak için kullanılan kaynaklar üzerindeki etkisine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

düzenleyici uyum, çokl hedef izleme, dinamik benlik düzenleme, geribildirimin yönü

Kaynakça

• Audia, P. G., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2000). The paradox of success: An archival and laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 837-853.
• Ballard, T., Vancouver, J. B., & Neal, A. (2018). On the pursuit of multiple goals with deadlines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1-38. DOI:10.1037/apl0000304
• Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
• Bargh, J. A., & Huang, J. Y. (2009). The selfish goal. In G. B. Moskowitz & H. Grant (Eds.), The Psychology of Goals, (pp. 127-153). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited source? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252-1265.
• Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167-203.
• Carver, C. S. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation: Research, theory and application (pp.13-39). New York: Guilford R.
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Themes and issues in the self-regulation of behavior. In R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Perspectives on Behavioral Self-regulation, (pp. 1-107). Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum.
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). On the structure of behavioral regulation. In M. E. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, (pp. 41-84). San Diego: Academic Press.
• Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 464-478.
• Chen, Y. A., & Bei, L. (2017). Reviewing regulatory focus based on four regulatory forms. Review of General Psychology, 21, 354-371.
• Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraajan, R. (2006). The role regulatory focus in the experience and self-control of desire for temptations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 163-175.
• Emmons, R. A., & King, L. A. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1040-1048.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Oxford: Row, Peterson.
• Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377.
• Fishbach, A., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2012). How feedback influences persistence, disengagement, and change in goal pursuit. In h. Aarts and A. J. Elliot (Eds.), Goal-Directed Behavior, (pp.203-230). New York: Psychology Press.
• Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Koo, M. (2009). The dynamics of self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 315-344.
• Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253-260.
• Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptations during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 291-298.
• Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., . . . Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 198 –229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025
• Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: The dead ends and the short cuts on the long way to action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal Directed Behavior: The Concept of Action in Psychology (pp.134-159). New Jersey: Earlbaum.
• Higgins, E. T. (1996a). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, (pp. 133-168). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
• Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 5, 1217-1230.
• Hong, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2008). Be fit and be strong: Mastering self-regulation through regulatory fit. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 682-695.
• Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). How current feedback and chronic effectiveness influence motivation: Everything to gain versus everything to lose. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 583-592.
• Idson, L. C., Liberman, N. & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from non-losses and losses from non-gains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252-274.
• Jarzebowski, A. M., Palermo, J., & van de Berg, R. (2012). When feedback is not enough: The impact of regulatory fit on motivation after positive feedback. International Coaching Psychology Review, 7, 14-32.
• Joostmann, N. B., & Koole, S. L. (2009). When persistence is futile: A functional analysis of action orientation and goal disengagement. In G. B. Moskowitz & H. Grant (Eds.), The Psychology of Goals, (pp. 337-362). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Kahneman , D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
• Kluger, A.N., & De Nisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: Historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.
• Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 183–195.
• Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (pp. 331-378). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994). Volition and Personality: Action Versus State Orientation. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
• Liberman, N., Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Completed vs. interrupted priming: Reduced accessibility from post-fulfillment inhibition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 258-264.
• Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 80, 5-18.
• Miller, N. E. (1944). Experimental studies in conflict. In J. M. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavioral disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 431-465). New York: Roland Press.
• Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited sources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259.
• Nease, A. A., Mudgett, B. O., & Quinones, M. (1999). Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 806-814.
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models:Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Schmid, P. C. (2018). Less power, greater conflict: Low power increases the experience of conflict in multiple goal settings. Social Psychology, 49, 47-62. DOI:10.1027/1864-9335/a000327
• Scholer, A. A., Stroessner, S. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Responding to negativity: How a risky tactic can serve a vigilant strategy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 767-774.
• Shah, J. Y. (2005). The Automatic Pursuit and Management of Goals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 10-13.
• Shah, J. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: The general impact of promotion and prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 693-705.
• Shah, J. Y., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Structural dynamics: The challenge of change in goal systems. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation Science, (pp. 217-235). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Shah, J. Y., Hall, D., & Leander, N. P. (2009). Moments of motivation: Margins of opportunity in managing the efficacy, need, and transitions of striving. In G. B. Moskowitz & H. Grant (Eds.), The Psychology of Goals, (pp. 234-254). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Shu, T., & Lam, S. (2011). Are success and failure experiences equally motivational? An investigation of regulatory focus and feedback. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 724-727.
• Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 113-135.
• Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in the relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 605-620.
• Watling, C., Driessen, E., Vleuten, C. P. M., Vanstone, M. & Lingard, L. (2012). Understanding responses to feedback: The potential and limitations of regulatory focus theory. Medical Education, 46, 593-603.
• Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Rand McNally.